BruceVC

I wouldn't say that but both books\movies do resonate with millions of people Twilight is more a teenager attraction but 50 Shades really did well with women of all ages for a number of reasons So no need for literature elitism...just because you have disdain for something it doesn't mean its subpar

If anything, DA3 made it pretty clear that Bioware was still in the drivers seat. They took all the criticisms of DA2 and made massive changes to try and fix the IP. You can argue that they simply went in another bad direction, but they definitely were given the rope to overhaul the game. I have to raise this, so many people on these forums seems to think DA:I was a bad game. Yet the sales numbers don't reflect this and from revenue perspective the game did really well Which begs the question, " is the game really that bad or are you guys just overly jaded and critical of anything from Bioware" ? Food for thought perhaps

http://www.gamereactor.eu/news/293644/Pillars+of+Eternity%3A+critical+path+only+"a+third+or+quarter"+of+game/ Thats cool, I love the idea of huge parts of the gameworld you can explore that aren't necessarily related to the main quest

But there is a difference, the Free Syrian Army is not a fundamentalist movement like ISIS And Assad is a dictatorial leader who refused to allow meaningful political changes to his leadership. So of course the West supports groups opposed to him but only if they represent a moderate ideological view Its not hard to understand

It was the easiest way to sum up the whole GG/anti-GG thing in as derisive a way as possible. I suppose "videogames are serious business" would have also sufficed. But you cannot tell me with a straight face that MSNBC, ABC, the BBC and various other mainstream media news outlets which are SUPPOSED to hire the best of the best in the industry can report and provide highly slanted accounts of GamerGate that are poorly researched, and that there's no problem there. This implies that either A.) Those big time journalists are actually incredibly lazy and slacking off, and made little to no effort to understand the issue beyond copy-pasting articles pre-written for them, or B.) They knew damned well what the full story looked like, but had no interest in publicizing the full story, instead preferring to provide coverage to the most emotionally-charged and hysteria-ridden narrative on the topic at hand. Either way, this is an issue. If those are supposed to be the experts in journalism and reporting, then we have a serious problem. Today it's Bayonetta getting a sub-par review score, tomorrow it's blatant lies about Russian actions within the Ukraine, or indirect encouragement to address issues of Muslim immigration in european countries in the most violent, sensationalist manner imagineable. This is a interesting point and one of the few that is linked to the sustainability of GG that genuinely concerns me, I watched on CNN International on the Kristie Lu Stout show the GG discussion. It was probably only 90 seconds long but it was very uninformed, critical and really surprised me that they made no effort to at least get the GG perspective Now a person may think " well this represents the overall quality of news from CNN International " but I don't think so. I think this was just a bad bit of journalism. So if all the news was this bad I would be very worried because basically we would be getting constant misinformation. But normal CNN stories have multiple guests and proper interviews. So lets not " throw the baby out with the bath water " as far as International news channels are concerned. Media housed like CNN and Sky do still provide us with credible and relevant updates on globak events Would sound a lot more inspiring and believable if it would be talked about not only by random internet people, but my actual-flesh-and-blood real-life friends and acquaintances, who largely haven't even heard about the whole thing, much less care about it in any way, shape or form. You might be overestimating the impact it has, mate. I'm not saying it's already large enough to accomplish what I've said I want accomplished. I'm saying it's showing a respectable resilience that leads me to believe it may someday reach that point. After all, the moment Polygon and Kotaku and the like are essentially sinking, there's gonna be a lot of people who spent months playing watchdog for games journalists and saw mainstream journalists exhibiting the same problems. I see no reason why those people would not attempt to play watchdog there next. Yes, laziness is a factor, but in my opinion laziness is usually what kills most movements, and it seems non-existent to gamergate in the face of how outraged a lot of it's supporters are. I believe if laziness were a threat to that, it would've already stopped Gamergate. I disagree, the movement has slowed down/stabilized; the factor that I think contributes most to its longevity is probably the same that led to the rise of SJWs in the Internet: people are doing what they usually did before but now for a cause. A lot of them are just going to chans, tweeting, sending e-mails, things they probably did before gamergate anyways and the few that contribute in research have prior experience doing it so they probably the same. Well done young grasshopper I see you learning how you can truly make GG sustainable. You need to see it as a cause, a campaign that you really believe in and something that you support outside of forums and Internet debate This is exactly what most SJW do, I don't just discuss gender equality ( and other SJ ideals )on these forums. Its part of my mindset and what I really believe is the right direction society needs to go. That is also why SJW have the support of media houses and other mediums, we raise real issues that resonate with people. Thats the secret to GG evolving to something really tangible and mainstream

And considering our starting point of "We are living in a world of massive economic inequality, Islamic extremism, wars in Ukraine, global pandemic viruses, an unstable Middle East, the rise of a haughty and jingoistic Russia and many other serious challengers that the global community grapples with.....", how is 'represenation' in games any different ? Excellent question, I'm glad someone asked that Representation in games may seem like an inconsequential factor compared to those other points but it is part of broader agenda which is effectively equality that we should strive for in all our societies. So you will notice that in everyone of those extreme examples I mentioned that the world grapples with in almost cases those countries don't practice equality or aren't very concerned with the happiness of there citizens. So gender equality is actually one of the definitions of a mature and progressive society....and representation in games is part of that which makes it relevant Just as ethical standards in journalism, free speech, anti corruption and anti censorship are even more important parts of a civilised society, your argument is insipid and biased towards the cause you purport to support. Ah yes I was waiting for someone to raise this....well done Nonek The reason why ethics in the gaming industry is not the same as gender equality is because there is an ongoing debate about whether there is an issue at all around so called " corruption in the gaming industry ". Many people, like me, think this whole issue has been horribly exaggerated. Sure there are some issues like in every industry but not to the degree where its so ubiquitous and fundamental like you guys would have us believe. So basically there isn't a concise and accepted definition of what " ethics in the gaming industry " really means But very few people will doubt that gender equality is something that concerns most of us on different levels...I'm sure you can see the difference ?

Nonek it sounds like you having a bad day.....tell me about it...I'm a good listener

And considering our starting point of "We are living in a world of massive economic inequality, Islamic extremism, wars in Ukraine, global pandemic viruses, an unstable Middle East, the rise of a haughty and jingoistic Russia and many other serious challengers that the global community grapples with.....", how is 'represenation' in games any different ? Excellent question, I'm glad someone asked that Representation in games may seem like an inconsequential factor compared to those other points but it is part of broader agenda which is effectively equality that we should strive for in all our societies. So you will notice that in everyone of those extreme examples I mentioned that the world grapples with in almost cases those countries don't practice equality or aren't very concerned with the happiness of there citizens. So gender equality is actually one of the definitions of a mature and progressive society....and representation in games is part of that which makes it relevant

Of course not. Poor representation of females and minorities is indeed an issue, a much greater one then "Ethics in Game's Journalism" But that's not Bruce's point. Bruce's point is that, say, "Islamic Extremism" dwarfs "ethics in journalism" in terms of importance. But "Islamic Extremism" would also dwarf "women's represenatation in video games". But that's not what we're comparing. We're comparing sex/gender in video games/video game industry (anti-GGs) and ethics in journalism (pro-GGs) and not the state of women in the world. And both of the formers dwarf in importance against, say, an Ebola pandemic. So because a person theoretically is working to improve games journalism means they can't also be working to improve other things that have nothing to do with games journalism? Are you really making that argument? You make some good points, I am just surprised at times by the amount of energy that seems to be spent on the topic of " ethics in the gaming industry"...but each to there own

Pretty much why the talk of "representation" in games is very laughable, no ? Of course not. Poor representation of females and minorities is indeed an issue, a much greater one then "Ethics in Game's Journalism". My issue with anti-GG is their praxis and how they waste so much focus and collective action on trying to fix one issue that's symptomatic of much larger issues. Combat the big issues and the smaller issues will follow suit. Yeah what Baro said, also you can't possibly compare the state of gender equality in the world to ethics in the gaming industry. There are women who live and die under horrendous social and institutionalized conditions. No one died the last time I checked due to perceived bias in the gaming industry ?

"Iran freedom " .....that was really funny....you win the much coveted " BruceVC funniest post of the week " award

It was the easiest way to sum up the whole GG/anti-GG thing in as derisive a way as possible. I suppose "videogames are serious business" would have also sufficed. You do make me laugh.... But guys lets be honest for a second. We are living in a world of massive economic inequality, Islamic extremism, wars in Ukraine, global pandemic viruses, an unstable Middle East, the rise of a haughty and jingoistic Russia and many other serious challengers that the global community grapples with.....you can understand why many people don't take the idea of a movement to highlight " ethics in the gaming journalist industry " seriously It does sound quite ludicrous compared to most other things people campaign for

Yes but at the sometime there were not romances Bioware style. So maybe there will be elements like this in PoE. True, but the fact that Planescape didn't really develop the Romance arcs was also one of my biggest criticism of the game Now before people accuse me of being a sad and lonely person and " wanting virtual sex with a pixel generated women " or " dude you weird.. get a RL gfriend " I need to clarify something, my criticism about the platonic Romance was that it was unrealistic considering the grandeur of the narrative Think about it guys, here is this person who has lived a hundred lives....crossed and explored the outer planes....returned from the dead....battled demons...associated with gods....loved deeply and suffered equally....served in the Blood Wars and then has a party of people who are quite prepared to die for him in order for him to discover his identity and purpose And within that party there are two beautiful and enigmatic women ( in the case Annah and Grace) who he is attracted to and have mutual feelings for him....now are you honestly going to tell me that after everything he has done and is doing he is not going to attempt to have a physical relationship with at least one of them during his journey of self-discovery ?

Oh yeah this game is still one of my most anticipated games of 2015 ....very excited

I doubt it, there were certain fundamental concerns about this KS that didn't seem relevant to what Obsidian did and will do People generally just have more faith in a company like Obsidian

Ravel and TNO's story is about love, yes. He charmed her into falling in love with him and she fell for him hard. Everything she has done, she did for him. She still loves him. Even as he lies to her, she loves him. Its horrible, abusive and unhealthy but its still a story about love. What people would do for love or how they would use love to get what they want. The same thing as with Deionarra really. I'm not saying the whole game is about love. Though maybe it is, what can change the nature of a man? Torment is a story about stories. Some of those stories are love stories. I agree with that, you can easily see how Planescape had an obvious undercurrent of Romance that was inextricably linked to the narrative

Well of course no sane person would support mandatory romances in an RPG. It would go against a core pillar of what makes an RPG in the first place: Choice. Never mind the fact that such a narrative would be condemned for being uncreative and cliché. Sure I understand how you may see it like that but yet you don't say that about many other mandatory features in RPG like classes and spells ? But anyway I am not so delusional to think mandatory Romance would be acceptable by some fans...it was just an idea if I was designing my own RPG

that is funny, thinking that GG people will somehow not think less of her. I'm sure only Leigh Alexander is more reviled than her for most GG people

I see it now but think it can go both ways, either as a sarcastic remark about how feminism does not demonize the list above, or as a statement that she does have some qualms with sex-negative feminism. That it's not hyphenated, I interpreted more to mean that statement is NOT a cornerstone of her presentation, but rather kind of a relevant statement based on the things that were truly discussed. I usually disagree when people say determining sarcasm on the internet is hard, but this is a case where I really don't find it so apparent. Its okay Longknife, you can say you were wrong. No one is going to think less of you I promise

I have mentioned before that if Romance was mandatory as part of the narrative in a RPG then there would be obviously less resistance to the concept and we would see a more realistic and mature interpretation of it in games, so I support the Japanese system of Romance But that idea was shot down horribly on these forums...very few people supported it Hmmmm... it's not so much that it's mandatory in J-RPGs, it's just that they choose your partner for you (or you can choose from a very small selection) and then carefully script all the interactions. So you can't hit on every single woman in the game world. You can only go for childhood friend A, mysterious girl B, or large-breasted classmate C. And you can't choose how the romance plays out, you can only watch the sub-plot unfold. And the sub-plots are often ridiculously stereotypical, but I think ridiculously stereotypical is better than unnatural and immersion breaking. Ah, okay. I see what you mean, I have never played a J-RPG before so I wasn't clear on what you meant. Thanks for explaining

Interesting you should say that. We've had quite a few thread discussions about PoE's Engagement mechanic. Yet not once has Bruce come to those threads to propose such a system for romances. I am disappoint, as they say. The main reason is I don't want to be seen to be hijacking threads to push a Romance agenda, we have more than enough threads to discuss Romance

The reason JRPGs are a lot better at romances are: they don't give the player much choice. The story is built in and you just go along with it. If you do it that way, then I think you can basically include an interesting romance story. Western RPGs try to give the player more choices and that's why they fail. I have mentioned before that if Romance was mandatory as part of the narrative in a RPG then there would be obviously less resistance to the concept and we would see a more realistic and mature interpretation of it in games, so I support the Japanese system of Romance But that idea was shot down horribly on these forums...very few people supported it

The cultural problem isn't that we reject romance, but that we have a difficult time accepting romantic wish fulfillment as a valid indulgence. It's a problem of immersion, of becoming sufficiently emotionally invested in a video game character to actually enjoy interacting with him/her romantically. Such immersion is vital to effective romantic roleplaying, but is incredibly hard to achieve when you refuse - eg for cultural reasons - to become emotionally involved with a video game in that way. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about 'Aerie is my eternal waifu I no longer care about 3D people' obsession, but rather a middle ground between it and the 'I play for teh lelz' crowd who's never going to be immersed to begin with. And I'm not asking for as much as you think - because the fact of the matter is, we DO get immersed in games, and we DO derive wish fulfillment from them. Otherwise, you won't see people becoming so emotionally invested in, say, Ellie in The Last of Us, and for that matter a World of Warcraft raid boss drop. Provided that you accept this premise - that emotional investment is critical to the success of a romance - then the rest of this logic is straight forward. The basis of an effective CRPG romance is a character that is endearing to you, and the basis of such a character is an aspect of wish fulfillment that appeals to you. Whether the developer subverts this aspect later - ie for thematic effects - there's no way to avoid it in the beginning, because in order for the player to even be drawn to that character in a romantic way, there has to be a raw attraction, and that attraction isn't cheap, especially not when you're trying to effect it through a computer screen with pixels. It's not enough to simply have a compelling character, because there's no excuse for forcing a romance track just to develop a compelling character. It's also not enough to just have a 'romantic story,' because the narrative fails when there is no investment - it feels empty and cheesy. It's further not enough to just have an attractive model, because that only inspires sexual attraction, which is cheap and fleeting when it's through the computer screen. There has to be a wish fulfillment aspect involved. In fact, there's nothing unique about romance - as people have already said hundreds of times - outside the actual existence of romantic feelings, and it's inspiring those feelings without any hope of sexual fulfillment that is the hardest task for the game designer. Romantic feelings? For a video game character? Madness, but in fact, people fall in love with fictional characters all the time - from books, comic books, films, etc., and in lieu of interaction they write a lot of bad fanfiction. But just from the fact that I cringed while writing this post tells me that there is a deep-seated resistance against this sort of behavior, and that to the degree that the 'mainstream' gaming culture shares in this resistance, video game romances won't flourish. Nah, I have no problem accepting Romance as a valid indulgence. I prefer to see it as a normal way of enhancing your interaction with party members. Its about realism and immersion. I have made my next point so many times but I'll happily make it again. Its completely reasonable and expected that if you are on this epic quest to save the world and everyday may be your last that you would develop a Romantic interest with someone in your party, especially if you are attracted to that person. Think about all the long nights spent around the campfire ruminating and reflecting on the ordeals of the day? In fact I always argue that by not having a Romance arc its unrealistic to how people interact emotionally

My friend you need to have faith....but I just want to let everyone know that this game won't have Romance. I don't want people to get upset later and its perfectly understandable considering the fact that you won't have a party with you

I'd love to hear what Wu meant by this. Yeah, context is always relevant when it comes to these types of comments